User talk:Peter Sketchley

Peter Sketchley, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Peter Sketchley! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Masumrezarock100 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

help with needed ?citation? for copyright validation.

need help with copyright query..

I was recently instructed to place a copyright statement on the "essential-dignities" tables I recently updated here on wikipedia see==>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essential_dignity&oldid=918977025#Table_of_the_most_commonly_used_of_the_traditional_essential_dignities[2]

the table is labelled "Table of the most commonly used of the traditional essential dignities"

I included the "optional-edit" commenting==> "was told by lawyer to add this " ©Peter Sketchley " statement.. I do give permission for this wikipedia.org website to display this textual information freely. This table has NEVER been solved by anyone else other than me in this modern-age / modern-day. IF I'm doing it wrong, then I apologize as I'm utterly inept with legal-stuff. I went thru the TEAHOUSE articles and honestly couldn't make sense of any of it. If I've done this wrong, please message me a link outlining the correct way"

this added new label "©Peter Sketchley 2015" the lawyer said to state the Year I originally solved the table..

As I did actually expect.. it was deleted.. by User:AstroLynx he was kind enough to add this comment "one cannot copyright unsourced changes to WP"

I've since read a lot more about wikipedia copyright policy & honestly I am terrible at understanding anything legal..

how do I cite a previous publication if no-one else in this modern-day has published the solved table? how can I claim a copyright if a previous published citation already exists? I thought only science FACT type stuff needed a citation-ed; can copyright textual info also need this? isn't it ART ??

I can definitely understand the need for "peer-review" but "universities" don't generally believe in astrology.. they aren't going to be interested.. this wikipedia website is FULL of astrology EXPERTS.. are they not peer-review worthy?

This table can ONLY go together ONE way.. to change ANY value will render it inaccurate and unable to fill in ALL the blank spaces.. the FACT it "fills in" ALL the spaces without breaking the detriment-exaltation-fall rules actually IS THE EVIDENCE... is it not?

this table can't be filled in any other way.. Personally, I think it would be marvelous to finally publish this "ancient-table" accurately filled in..

Can anyone help by explaining step by step what I must do in order to be recognized for this achievement? I'm currently dumb founded by the legal wording..

thanks in advance for the advice.. Peter Sketchley (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot give legal advice, and nothing here should be consrtued as such. If you feel that there's a need to add an explicit copyright tag to the page, then the content is unsuitable for Wikipedia. When you publish changes, there's a note that says: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."
What exactly do you claim copyright for? Are you saying that you, personally, were the one to arrange that information in that tabular form? The article currently cites a 17th-century book as a source, which would, if correct, mean that you cannot copyright what someone else wrote centuries ago. If the table was created by you in 2015, on the other hand, then it's clearly not "traditional" as the heading claims it is, and it should be removed entirely. Huon (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

errors with current table

The TABLE you reference and every other such table is INCOMPLETE.. see==>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_dignity#Table_of_the_most_commonly_used_of_the_traditional_essential_dignities[2]

it does not express the differences between the 7-houses and the 12-houses.. it is USELESS in its previous form..

The table I provided fills in all the blanks.. see==>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essential_dignity&oldid=918977025#Table_of_the_most_commonly_used_of_the_traditional_essential_dignities[2]

every zodiac sign is subject to natural-law.. meaning everyone has detriment-exaltation-fall; to imply that some zodiac signs are not bound by these laws is untrue & even nonsensical.

The unwary might interpret those incomplete tables to state things like "Mars therefore Aries EXALTS in Capricorn".. it doesn't.. "Scorpio does".. there is NO legitimate law that states "Aries exalts in Capricorn"... these types of errors are common-place in astrology..

The Ancients deliberately encrypted their work to keep it secret & the initiate was expected to be capable of expanding it to all 12 zodiac thus filling in the blanks using simple know-how of rules relating to essential-dignities..

I have no problem with websites providing a hyperlink or URL back to wikipedia; thats OK, quite appreciated.. its the BOOK publishing side of things that is of concern, not online media.

I personally with the understanding I have, don't even see the need to put a tag on the wiki table, but I was told "protocol" dictates it so. If this is untrue, then I'm personally OK with no label existing. I was only concerned with this causing a loop-hole for book publishers.

sorry if my original question was unclear. I appreciate your time. Peter Sketchley (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you have said here indicates that your additions to the table constitute original research and are thus unsuitable for Wikipedia. Content in Wikipedia must be based on summarizing published sources. The concept of something being "correct" or "incorrect" in astrology seems rather specious and if, as you claim, the incomplete table is useless, we might as well remove the whole thing! — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 14:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with that last statement: Whether or not it's incorrect, if the table represents something that was accepted for centuries, it may well have its place in the article, particularly if it's described as "traditional". If there is a reliable published source that states that the table is incorrect and has been abandoned by modern-day astrologists, we can summarize that (in our own words, to avoid copyright issues) and cite the source. Huon (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

explain it to "experts"

The TABLE you claim to be "traditional" that represents something that was accepted for centuries.

I too have read many very very old "astrology books" & I have read something to the effect stating "the ancients deliberately obfuscated their work/tables to keep their secrets secret".. and the "initiate" was expected to expand this table out to the full 12 zodiac by using "know-how" known to their members.

I have also seen these "essential-dignities" tables many times in very old "astrology books" & I have indeed seen this table with the "exaltation" Column labelled as "exaltation of"..

IF I "go-to-the-great bother" of "re-finding" this very old "astrology book" with that column labelled "exaltation of"; then will you accept this as evidence?

OR will you state that the "MAJORITY" states this "exaltation" error, therefore this error is the truth by majority rule?

AS FOR the "ACCURACY" of the current "essential-dignities" tables supported here on wikipedia..

see==>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_dignity#Table_of_the_most_commonly_used_of_the_traditional_essential_dignities[2]

[1st] CANCER

MOON/Cancer can NOT exalt JUPITER fall MARS. <<== this is ERROR

if MOON/Cancer exalts JUPITER/Sagittarius then Cancer MUST fall MERCURY/Gemini..

if MOON/Cancer exalts JUPITER/Pisces then Cancer MUST fall MERCURY/Virgo..

comment: this RULE is nonsense OR obfuscated. <== which one of these?

[2nd] CAPRICORN

SATURN/Capricorn can NOT exalt MARS fall JUPITER. <<== this is ERROR

if SATURN/Capricorn exalts MARS/Aries then Capricorn MUST fall VENUS/Libra..

if SATURN/Capricorn exalts MARS/Scorpio then Capricorn MUST fall VENUS/Taurus..

comment: this RULE is nonsense OR obfuscated. <== which one of these?

ALL those so-called "traditional" astrology experts whom wrote ALL those books you hold-to;

were written by idiots whom did not bother to "check-their-work" & instead propagated an obfuscation ERROR.

TODAY, our "modern-astrology" is nonsense. TRICKED by a deliberate obfuscation.

THE table I presented resolved the 12zodiac "exactly" without ERROR..

if a million people believe an ERROR; does that ERROR become TRUTH?

CONCLUSION: the "essential-dignity" table on wiki is wrong OR obfuscated. <=== which of these?

Peter Sketchley (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the foundations of Wikipedia is that it presents summaries of what the most common published sources say about a subject, not original research. To provide a corrected table, you would need to cite a reliable published source. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 10:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
YOU STATED: wiki UNFORTUNATELY summaries of what the most common published sources say about an obfuscated subject, BUT luckily....
YOU STATED: If you can find a "corrected" table in a verifiable source (blogs don't count) then by all means add a reference.
THIS is EXCELLENT.. I'm referring to an actual "very old" astrology book. The hard drive I had those books (pdf) on is crashed and requires expensive "mechanical" repair in a clean-room; that drive contains advanced design blueprints so I'd prefer to finish off an easier project then buy the repair-company as I've been warned by fellow academics they generally do an image-copy & go for a snoop-around.
I'm very pleased with your response and I will endeavor to re-find this source book-material and get back to you.
I originally came upon this book by sheer-luck, so this may take a bit..
until then....
Cheers, I appreciate your time.
Peter Sketchley (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone here understand essential-dignity?

Request PEER-REVIEW aptitude assessment of Wikipedia.org publishers.

ALL publishers governing wiki-page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_dignity

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essential_dignity&action=history

Is my upload table relevant even if no-one else understands it?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Learning_Table.jpg

Peter Sketchley (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The table seems relevant enough to me, and it also seems rather understandable.
If there indeed are no copyright issues (you will need to provide a rationale on why there are no such issues), you can upload the image to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. That said, I see no reason to upload a table as an image. See Help:Table on how to build tables directly on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers original Question edited to include image now uploaded to link provided
Peter Sketchley (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. I would try to put everything in simple words. obscure does not mean not notable. Also, wikipedia is not exactly a peer-rebiew system. If anything new is added in the WP, it needs to be verified (WP:V) through reliable sources (WP:RS). And the copyright issues have been explained above. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the basis of the uploaded table is from p. 135 of the book A Manual of Astrology and is "According to the Author's System". The book gives another table "According to the Systems of Ancient Authors" on p. 133. Unless there is evidence that that author's system was widely adopted, I see no reason to give an individual author's personal system. (Is this the only personal system developed? If not, why go with this one and not any of the others that may exist?) What he writes of the "anient authors" appears to agree with the "traditional" table in the essential dignity article and thus confirms it (I haven't checked every table entry).
The additional comments added to the original table taken from the book appear to be original research. There are also typos in those comments, and they deviate from the nomenclature of the book (eg regarding what exalts what). That's not even considering the mention of Pluto which the book doesn't consider and which wasn't even discovered at the time of its writing. Huon (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[HUON] There are also typos in those comments, and they deviate from the nomenclature of the book (eg regarding what exalts what).
[ME] There are NO typos in my comments about that table.. they are ALL "viable" laws. You appear to NOT understand the "rules" of detriment/exaltation/fall, and are unable to "discern" the difference between a "valid" rule and "gibberish". The table you compare it to is "obfuscated-gibberish"; the gibberish one is here==>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_dignity


DETRIMENT must be 180 degrees opposite your 12TRIBE zodiac house. [at ALL times]
FALL must be 180 degrees opposite your EXALTATION. [at ALL times]
else it is "silly-obfuscated-gibberish"..
EXPERTS must learn to "check-their-work"..


The modern-day understanding of "essential-dignity" is currently misunderstood by "experts" and not yet "mastered".
The "Table of the most commonly used of the traditional essential dignities" on wikipage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_dignity is an "obfuscated" run-down on "legitimate" natural-laws of detriment/exalt/fall.


There are "more" recent laws of detriment/exalt/fall that must be added to that table then "tallied" to show all "legitimate" essential-dignity natural-laws.
These "recent laws" can be easily cited from more recent astrology publications..
These additional laws "tally-table" to create a "legitimate" list of viable (non-obfuscated) laws that make sense and don't read as being "silly-gibberish" exactly like the "silly-gibberish" on the "essential-dignity table" located https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_dignity
Experts are expected to recognize "silly-gibberish" when they see it and realize it is "obfuscated".


In ADDITION to a "legitimate" list of "legitimate" essential-dignity laws there is ALSO...
Two Basic Tables of specific "Deity-Pantheon" whom have "exaltation-ascended" as a group to form a Pantheon of GodHEADS.
[A] Rule under HERSHEL <<==this is my "Learning Table.jpg" https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Learning_Table.jpg
[B] Rule under DRAGON RUHU-NORTH KETU-SOUTH [these essential-dignity laws are also easy to cite]
BOTH table [A] & [B] have "multiple" sources to cite. thats "3" different tables stated plus NEW "laws" in newer publications.


JUST BECAUSE certain "individuals[A/B]" aka Gods decide to personify a bunch of specific GodHEADs and "make" themselves a collective "strange-attractant-cupid" that "exerts" heavenly aka "astrology" influence over the population of mankind thus "leading" us via "fate" to make ourselves a "copy" of "them".... does NOT mean it is a "good-thing"
..in fact BOTH [A] & [B] Pantheons are EVIL.
the PURPOSE of me uploading my "Learning Table.jpg" https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Learning_Table.jpg
was to SHOW EVERYONE what an "non-obfuscated" table looks like and how to recognize "legitimate" laws instead of "silly-gibberish"
YOU all must first LEARN what is "legitimate" essential-dignities and distinguish it from "silly-gibberish"....
THEN understand other "essential-dignity" tables that RENDER the "will" of the "Gods" which is FAKE imposition of their "will" over us to make us like them.... icky icky monster-Gods playing puppet-master with mankind !!!!


WE need to REDO the wiki "essential-dignity" page to...
[A] show legitimate essential-dignity laws in entirety.
[B] show HERSHEL Pantheon monster EVIL influences.
[C] show DRAGON RUHU-NORTH KETU-SOUTH Pantheon monster EVIL influences.
THUS we "experts" can finally stop publishing "silly-gibberish" and stop peddling "evil" advice from monster Gods as is the actual case on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_dignity
WE MUST KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
the use of Uranus, Neptune & Pluto is to "PROOF-OUT" the OLD 7-House Laws do and will match-up perfectly with NEW 12-House Laws.
Peter Sketchley (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No typos? So it's deliberate that in the line that starts with "IF MARS/Scorpio ..." there is no space between "AND" and "fall"? And in the line that starts with "IF SATURN/Capricrn ..." there should not be an "o" in "Capricrn"? In the same line, "... fall AND fall..." is also deliberate? I am skeptical. That said, if there are newer publications that cover this issue, you are welcome to point them out. Wikipedia is not the place where we can explain rules that we have figured out ourselves; it is the place to summarize what reliable published sources have reported on a subject. The book you cite does have its problems with the "ancient authors", but I haven't seen where it mentions obfuscation. Huon (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


[HUON] not the place where we can explain rules that we have figured out ourselves
[RULES] are already figured-out & accepted. Its just the "EXPERTS" whom ALWAYS ignore them & don't "check-their-work".
DETRIMENT must be 180 degrees opposite your 12TRIBE zodiac house. [at ALL times]
FALL must be 180 degrees opposite your EXALTATION. [at ALL times]
this PROVES the table on wiki here===>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_dignity is "obfuscated-rubbish".


Typo = spelling mistake.. thank God its just spelling and NOT refuting "accuracy"
YES, I will now rewrite the spelling errors.
IF SATURN/URANUS/Aquarius exalts VENUS/Libra IT detriment SOL/Leo AND fall MARS/Aries
IF JUPITER/NEPTUNE/Pisces exalts MOON/Cancer IT detriment MERCURY/Virgo AND fall SATURN/Capricorn
IF MARS/PLUTO/Scorpio exalts SATURN/Capricorn IT detriment VENUS/Taurus AND fall MOON/Cancer
this last MARS law above PROVES the table on wiki here===>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_dignity is "rubbish".


As for the "but I haven't seen where it mentions obfuscation.", I was told by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AstroLynx#help_with_previous_deletion.. that all I need to do is find an example of the "essential-dignity" table on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_dignity that labels the "exaltation" column as "exaltation of"; thats all.
ALSO general discussion about deliberate obfuscation of astrology secrets is indeed written in "old" astrology books, so don't worry because I will re-find those also and cite them when I'm done.

The ORIGINAL request was: Request PEER-REVIEW aptitude assessment of Wikipedia.org publishers.

ALL publishers governing wiki-page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_dignity

OK I'm now "clued-up" and will endeavor to sand-box a new "essential-dignity" wiki-page citing sources within wiki-rules. Then leave the rest of the resulting many paragraphs of "silly-gibberish" misconception "expert-facts" already written on that page for the rest of you to laugh at... sorry I meant "make-corrections-to".

I'm sure we're all now on the same page.

cheers and thanks to everyone for their time.

Peter Sketchley (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You're welcome. Huon (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Sketchley&oldid=919719370"